PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
|
TO: |
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners |
DATE: |
11/10/04 |
FILE: |
PMA05-035 |
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
THRU: |
Bipin Parikh, P.E. Assistant County Administrator (Development Services) |
SUBJECT: |
Route Study Re-evaluation URS Corporation Southern, Inc. Moon Lake Road (C.R. 587) from DeCubellis Road to S.R. 52 Task Order No. EDO03-005 |
||||
|
|
|||||||
|
FROM: |
James C. Widman, P.E. Engineering Services Director |
REFERENCES: |
Commission District 4 W.O. No. C-9528.00 EDA03-041, PMA03-079, PMA04-104 |
||||
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In April 2003, the Engineering Services Department Design/Stormwater Division completed the original route study of the roadway alignments for the improvements to Moon Lake Road (C.R. 587) from DeCubellis Road to S.R. 52. Five alternative alignments, as well as one “no-build” alternative were considered and were described in that route study. The proposed alternative alignments were analyzed based on the following:
1. Long-range planning
2. Safety
3. Cost
4. Environmental impacts
5. Property impacts
All the alternatives considered future expansion to the ultimate six-lane facility. Alternative alignment concepts were limited to those, which maximize the utilization of the existing right-of-way. Additional property acquisitions for construction of slopes and off-site drainage facilities will be determined at a later date. Five alternative alignment options, as well as a “no-build” alternative were considered as follows:
ALIGNMENT I - Construct four new urban lanes within a 120-130-foot-wide right-of-way throughout the corridor.
ALIGNMENT II – Construct four new urban lanes within a 130-foot-wide right-of-way at the southern and northern ends of the project, with the majority of the two new rural lanes located west and parallel to the existing rural lanes within a 170-foot-wide right-of-way.
ALIGNMENT IIA – Construct four new urban lanes within a 130-foot-wide right-of-way at the southern and northern ends of the project, with the two new rural lanes east and parallel to the existing rural lanes within a 170-foot-wide right-of-way.
ALIGNMENT III – Construct four new urban lanes within a 130-foot-wide right-of-way at the southern and northern ends of the project, with four new rural lanes along the center of the corridor within a 170-foot-wide right-of-way.
ALIGNMENT IV – Construct four new urban lanes within a 130-foot-wide right-of-way at the southern and northern ends of the project, with four new lanes along the center of the corridor within a 196-foot-wide right-of-way.
ALIGNMENT V – Construct no new roadway facility. Alignment V, the “no-build” alternative does not provide an upgraded facility to meet either present or future needs of the County; but remains an alternate throughout the route study.
ORIGINAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
|
|
Alignment I |
Alignment II |
Alignment IIA |
Alignment III |
Alignment IV |
Alignment V |
|
Construction |
$10,820,285 |
$8,663,122 |
$8,663,122 |
$10,285,100 |
$10,921,853 |
0 |
|
Engineering (15%) |
1,623,043 |
1,299,468 |
1,299,468 |
1,542,765 |
1,638,278 |
0 |
|
Land (R/W) |
1,278,000 |
2,351,000 |
2,905,500 |
2,351,000 |
2,732,500 |
0 |
|
Land (Ponds) |
750,000 |
1,194,000 |
1,068,000 |
1,194,000 |
1,344,000 |
0 |
|
Contingency (10%) |
1,447,133 |
1,350,759 |
1,393,609 |
1,537,287 |
1,663,663 |
0 |
|
GRAND TOTAL |
$15,918,461 |
$14,858,349 |
$15,329,699 |
$16,910,152 |
$18,300,294 |
0 |
Alignment II was the recommended alignment with some urban drainage but mostly rural, grassed swales. Alignment II utilizes a 170-foot-wide right-of-way, which will accommodate the ultimate six lanes, left-turn lanes, and an eight-foot-wide sidewalk. This alignment undergoes several horizontal alignment shifts for a safer design speed and allows a majority of the existing two lane facility to remain, and is the less expensive in the overall project cost. All original alignments anticipated some reuse of the existing roadway as two lane of the new facility.
The Board directed staff to shift Alignment II further toward the east, along The Reserve at Golden Acres, and to advise the residents when that had been done.
Soil data collected during design has revealed the wetland we planned to cross in the vicinity of Banbury Avenue has in excess of thirty feet of muck. This is sufficient to make the proposed alignment considerably more expensive, as well as more environmentally damaging, difficult, and time consuming. The alternative to this is more closely following the excessively curved existing alignment.
Southwest of Banbury Avenue, the Waters Edge development dedicated rights-of-way thought to be compatible with our study. Once survey was complete, we found that was incorrect, as was the assumption that we could utilize existing pavement with no change in grade. Drainage design forces the roadway higher, and requires both wider and deeper swales. The result is virtually the same as Alignment IIA.
A change order directed the consultant to re-evaluate the realignments, expand the environmental assessment, include a pond siting analysis, and update the cost estimates for Alignment II as now configured (Alignment II Revised).
Alignment II Revised remains urban at both ends and suburban along a majority of its length. Design speed has been reduced to 45 mph in the vicinity of the signal at Banbury Avenue, due to the curvature needed in that area. The costs of retaining walls or additional right-of-way for slopes and ponds have also been included in the current estimate.
Wetland delineations were revised and updated. Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) and Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) assessments were conducted for USACOE and SWFWMD permitting. The pond siting report analyzed alternative sites for ponds and flood plain compensation areas based upon the SWFWMD requirements, long range planning, safety, proximity to the collector roadway, site topography, overall topography, ability to preserve historic drainage patterns, present land use, maintenance access, environmental impacts, property impacts, potential cost including property acquisition, and hydrology.
All alignment revisions, together with pond siting analyses, were taken to the public workshop on June 15, 2004, attended by approximately 150 persons. Citizens were concerned about: left-turn safety, signal locations, a need for street lighting, insuring drainage revisions improvement rather than damage flow of outfalls, water and sewer infrastructure for new development, and perceived potential loss of homestead exemption.
REVISED (UPDATED) PROJECT COSTS
|
ALIGNMENT |
I |
II |
IIA |
II REVISED |
III |
IV |
V |
|
Construction |
$22,722,000 |
$20,055,000 |
$18,693,000 |
$20,763,200 |
$23,599,000 |
$24,936,000 |
$0 |
|
Engineering (15%) |
3,408,300 |
3,008,250 |
2,803,950 |
3,114,500 |
3,539,850 |
3,740,400 |
0 |
|
Land (R/W) |
4,713,200 |
8,679,000 |
8,679,800 |
8,500,000 |
8,679,000 |
10,382,600 |
0 |
|
Land (Ponds) |
1,302,000 |
2,481,550 |
1,830,550 |
2,500,000 |
2,481,550 |
2,884,550 |
0 |
|
Contingency (10%) |
3,214,550 |
3,422,380 |
3,200,730 |
0 |
3,829,940 |
4,194,355 |
0 |
|
GRAND TOTAL |
$35,360,050 |
$37,646,180 |
$35,208,030 |
$34,877,700 |
$42,129,340 |
$46,137,905 |
$0 |
Construction costs reflect replacement of additional pavement due to hydraulic criteria. Right- of-way land includes acquisition costs. Pond land costs reflect more detailed hydraulic/drainage information and cost data. Alignment II Revised contingencies are separately included within construction and land numbers.
The Engineering Services Department recommends approval of Alignment II Revised with the changes described in the re-evaluation. Alignment II Revised provides a safe roadway in accordance with FDOT guidelines and provides adequate facility upgrades consistent with the Pasco County Long Range Transportation Plan. The revised alignment maximizes the utilization of existing right-of-way and avoids impacts to an existing subdivision and at least one proposed new subdivision on the west side of the corridor.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
1. Approve Alignment II Revised as presented for the proposed improvements to Moon Lake Road.
2. Select another alignment alternative and provide staff direction.
3. Discontinue the project.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
It is the recommendation of the Engineering Services Department that the Board approve the selection of Alignment II Revised for the Moon Lake Road improvements.
No additional funding is required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Re-evaluation Study
2. Location Map
JCW/JJC/ELM/RT/ph
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR
DATE: _______________________
BY: _________________________